- (1.) The petitioner, in this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the ex parte order passed by the Estate Officer, United Commercial Bank, dated 25th Nov. 1981 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises No. 1 B Russel Street, Calcutta, by 31/12/1982. The said order is passed in exercise of powers under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Apart from challenging the order passed by the said Estate Officer, the applicant goes a step further by impugning the very appointment of respondent No. 3, viz. Shri V. Ramachandran, as the Estate Officer on the ground that the said office in the first instance requires the incumbent to be a man experienced and trained to exercise judicial powers and secondly to be a man independent and impartial not having interest directly or indirectly in the matter to be adjudicated upon, free from bias and partiality. In that connection, the vires of Section 3 of the said Act of 1971 is also in challenge as it confers on the Central Government unguided powers to appoint as the Estate Officer anybody irrespective of qualifications, experience and personal background, even though the performance of the duties of the office requires expertise in law and training and experience in judicial work. The said provision of S. 3 is assailed as ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Shortly stated the facts leading up to the impugned order passed by the Estate Officer, respondent No. 3, are that United Commercial Bank, respondent No. 2, is the owner of the premises No. 1B, Russel Street, Calcutta, a two-storied building and the petitioner-company claims to be the tenant of the subject property and has been carrying on its business at the ground floor and a portion of the first floor thereof. The premises is also the Registered Office of the petitioner company. According to the claim of the petitioner, it is the monthly tenant under the said Bank on a rent of Rs. 1,000.00 per month. The tenancy owes its origin, as claimed be the petitioner, to the year 1960.
(3.) The petitioner complains that the respondent bank, bent upon evicting the petitioner, has been striving to achieve that end by any means fair or foul. In October 1975, the respondent Bank issued a notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 calling upon the petitioner to vacate and quit the premises thereby admitting the inter se relationship of landlord and tenant. Thus, the rights of the petitioner as a tenant are pleaded to be indisputable. The respondent did not however, follow up the issue of the said notice for eviction and refrained from filing any suit. On 4/02/1977 the respondent Bank, instead, appointed one of its officers as the Estate Officer, who issued a notice under Sections 4(1) and 7(3) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.;